[251] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Other Researchers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dan Schlitt)
Fri Mar 1 13:20:20 1991
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 91 13:06:31 -0500
From: Dan Schlitt <dan@sci.ccny.cuny.edu>
To: jsq@tic.com
Cc: com-priv@psi.com, craig@sics.se, jqj@duff.uoregon.edu
In response to some comments that I made John S. Quarterman writes:
>
>Actually, as long as BITNET has LISTSERV and the Internet does not,
>BITNET has the relative advantage for people who want to have small,
>easily controllable, yet distributed discussion groups. Unfortunately,
>the main reason that there is no LISTSERV on the Internet is the firmly
>held belief by most Internet people that LISTSERV == mailing lists. A
>similar problem exists with BITNET interactive messages. There are
>also apparently DECNET services that don't map directly to Internet
>applications. The TCP/IP community needs to be more receptive to ideas
>from outside before it can make a convincing case that the Internet is
>better.
>
That goes along with the comment that someone else made that users are
interested in applications and not protocols. I agree 100% that the
TCP/IP community needs to be more receptive to the application level
needs of the network users. An example of such a need is supplying
the functionality of LISTSERV -- not a clone, but something that will
do the same job and perhaps better.
/dan
